How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[Ringo84]

How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

The key elements of the Atheistic Lifestyle are extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality. By supporting/advocating these issues the Democratic Party is opposing Christian Principles.

Extreme environmentalism is opposed to Christian Principles when nature is worshiped instead of God. God states man is to have dominion over the world.

Socialism requires the person worship the government instead of God.

Feminism deceives a woman and destroys the Christian Family concept that is a cornerstone of the Christian Lifestyle.

Pornography deceives the man and destroys the Christian Family concept that is cornerstone of the Christian Lifestyle.

Abortion denies the value of life taught by the Bible and denies that God has ownership over all people.

Homosexuality denies the word of God and represents total defiance of God.

Democrats attempt to pass hate crime legislation that would prevent Christians from preaching/teaching God's word.

Democrats attempt to pass homosexual marriage/civil union legislation when they get control of the government. A recent example of this was the state of Oregon that went from Republican Control to Democratic Control in 2006. Just as soon as the Democrats were in control, they passed civil union legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Oregon

Domestic partnership in Oregon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In April and May 2007, following a previous attempt in 2005, the Oregon state legislature passed legislation to make virtually all of the rights afforded to married couples available to same-sex couples. The new status will be referred to in Oregon law as a domestic partnership, avoiding the use of the terms marriage or civil union. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill on May 9, 2007, and it is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2008.

However, after the November 2006 mid-term elections Democrats won a majority of the formerly Republican-controlled house[4], and in early 2007, Democrats was re-introduced a bill in the House similar to the 2005 legislation. The bill adopted the term "domestic partnership" to describe these unions; the terms "marriage" or "civil union" were absent. This bill enjoyed a relatively easy passage through the legislature, when compared to its 2005 predecessor. Passed by the House on April 17, 2007 (by a vote of 34-26) and by the Senate on May 2, 2007 (by a vote of 21-9), Governor Kulongiski signed the Oregon Family Fairness Act on May 9, 2007. The law is not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2008.

-----------------------------------

Democrats are very good at selling the Atheistic Lifestyle. Pornography is freedom of speech, abortion is a woman's right to choose and homosexuality is a civil right. One of the most hypocritical statement is: "I would not do that, but I would not object to others doing it". That is like saying: I would not seduce your children, but I would not mind someone else seducing your children. If it is wrong, it is wrong for all people. Christians should not vote for people that condone or advocate evil.

Even Christians are deceived by the propaganda of the Democrats. Universal Health Care sounds good till you realize that the main purpose of Universal Health Care is to force the responsible to pay for the mistakes of the irresponsible. The mistakes of the irresponsible are the evil that the Bible says to avoid.

The entire OP is a crock.

The key elements of the Atheistic Lifestyle are extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

Where do I even begin here? This is a complete misrepresentation of so-called "Atheists", who the author lumps together as though they all think and act alike. That sentence quoted above is sadly lacking in objective fact and long on propaganda.

Extreme environmentalism

What is "extreme environmentalism"? Don't just throw around meaningless phrases; define what you mean. Does that encompass all environmentalism, or a certain kind of environmentalism?

God states man is to have dominion over the world.

That doesn't prove that God would enjoy watching His own creation, which He pronounced as "good", being indifferently destroyed.

Socialism requires the person worship the government instead of God.

I hear that term "Socialism" thrown around a lot in this country. It's often pinned to ideas that people don't like. Do you even know what true Socialism is?

Feminism deceives a woman and destroys the Christian Family concept that is a cornerstone of the Christian Lifestyle.

Letting a woman know that she is of equal value to a man and that her contributions to society are as meaningful as any man's is "deception"? In what universe?

Pornography deceives the man and destroys the Christian Family concept that is cornerstone of the Christian Lifestyle.

What does pornography have to do with the Democratic party?

Homosexuality denies the word of God and represents total defiance of God.

"Total defiance of God" is denial that God exists. Homosexuality does not fall into that category.

Democrats attempt to pass hate crime legislation that would prevent Christians from preaching/teaching God's word.

Pure propaganda and falsehood.

Actually, the facts seem to be very much represented here.

Facts? More like outright lies and propaganda.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

KomissarSteve quote

No! Curses! You've discovered the truth - we're NOT Christians who take seriously the American principle that the government shouldn't favor one religion on public spaces above others!

Response

The following is what the Constitution says.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a great difference between favor and establish.

America has many times favored Christianity by putting "In God We Trust" on our money, "One nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and by the court oath that a person will tell the truth.

The following is what the Constitution says.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a great difference between favor and establish.

America has many times favored Christianity by putting "In God We Trust" on our money, "One nation under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and by the court oath that a person will tell the truth.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the government should be able to favor one religion over another. It isn't. The thing about freedom is that it must apply equally to everyone or it is meaningless. The government protects religious liberty by stepping aside and not taking sides on religious matters (religiously neutral) so that private citizens are given the freedom of conscience.

The government as an entity does not have the freedom of religion; it must remain religiously neutral. Private citizens - including those who work in government - do have freedom of religion because the government is religiously neutral.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

ONEGod:
Our forefathers made it abundantly clear we are and were birthed as a Judeo-Christian nation, and how clearly they told us so.


"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
–John Quincy Adams [July 4th, 1821]

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
-James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
-James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?" –
-Benjamin Franklin [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation."
-George Washington, circular letter of farewell to the Army, June 8, 1783

" The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
-Alexander Hamilton [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
–John Quincy Adams [July 4th, 1821]

Quincy likely never said that.
Pages X through XXXVIII of the Thornton book are a historical introduction to the subject of religion in the New England States, with a special focus on the state of Massachusetts. Throughout this introduction, Thornton quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in quotation marks. Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for emphasis.
The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:

• The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principle of Christianity (italics in the original).

No footnote for these words is given. Nor are the words attached to a date. Hence, if these words are a quotation from Adams, it is impossible to trace them back from Thornton's book to an original source. Elsewhere in the book Adams' father (John Adams) is quoted properly, i.e., with footnotes and quotation marks.
It appears, in other words, that somewhere down the line Thornton's conclusions about John Quincy Adams were passed off as Adam's own remarks. In Federer's case, his reproduction of the quotation doesn't edit out the words "said John Quincy Adams" and replace them with ellipses; either he knowingly misreports Thornton's words, or he didn't check his sources for accuracy. It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus.
Please note: even if Adams did say these words it wouldn't bolster the accomodationist's case; as we suggest elsewhere, Adams would simply be wrong to argue that the federal Constitution embodies the principles of Christianity. It doesn't, and Adams' saying so doesn't prove a thing. Rather, the real importance of this quote is as a demonstration of just how far some popular Christian authors will go to prove their case. Nothing in the Thornton book justifies taking the "indissoluble bond" quote as John Quincy Adams' own words, but because it says something the right wants to hear, the words are pressed into service anyway.

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
-James Madison [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

No such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison's writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated.

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."
-James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?" –
-Benjamin Franklin [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

Acknowledgement that the founders may have received divine help to save themselves and write the Constitution. There is nothing in either quote to suggest that they thought the Constitution was Godly or that this was a Christian nation.

Divine Author of our blessed Religion,

He said "our religion". So what? Are you so concerned with cherry-picking quotes from our founders (or misquotes, as the case may be) that you would use such a weak example?

" The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail

That may have been his opinion, but our country was founded because our founders desired to be free of the tyrannical crown. Any religion that may have been involved with the Revolution was the founders' own.

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests."
-Alexander Hamilton [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

Read above.

You might want to recheck those facts.
Ringo

 

[Flynmonkie]

Ringo DUDE WHERE YA BEEN MAN??

 

[KomissarSteve]

Ringo DUDE WHERE YA BEEN MAN??

I KNOW, seriously!

Couldn't be more pleased to see you back, d00derz.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Acknowledgement that the founders may have received divine help to save themselves and write the Constitution. There is nothing in either quote to suggest that they thought the Constitution was Godly or that this was a Christian nation.

Oh Oh oH I DO KNOW THIS ONE!! IN fact, the treaty of Tripoli actually stated the opposite. That this is NOT a Christian nation.

Actually, I have Stephen J. Goulds site right here:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Oh thats right, he is not really as credible of a source, so hows about...

Yale
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped.
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tripoli.htm

Good ole Wikipedia....

Article 11
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version provided by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty, and was from a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.[1]

However it originated, it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the United States Senate by a unanimous vote.

Article 11, reads:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state contend that this article is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the "Christian Nation" theory dispute this, arguing that the article in the treaty carries little or no significance. [citation needed]
Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

 

[Flynmonkie]

I KNOW, seriously!

Couldn't be more pleased to see you back, d00derz.

I just sit here and go, yeah what he said!!! LOL! I am sooo not worthy!

(You know it is going to take me an hour to research these posts right? )

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo DUDE WHERE YA BEEN MAN??

I KNOW, seriously!

Couldn't be more pleased to see you back, d00derz

Hi, Flyn and Komissar! Good to see you both and thanks for the welcome. I was out of town for a family thing for a few days.
Ringo

 

[KomissarSteve]

Hi, Flyn and Komissar! Good to see you both and thanks for the welcome. I was out of town for a family thing for a few days.
Ringo

*shrugs* Hey, family happens. I had to play the role of "shocktrooper for the left and moderates" for the last month while you were gone, and now I can return to my preferred job of making short, snarky, mocking posts.

 

[Ringo84]

I just sit here and go, yeah what he said!!! LOL! I am sooo not worthy!

Thanks (blush). But you're perfectly worthy, Flyn You are awesome at debunking illogic on these boards.

(You know it is going to take me an hour to research these posts right? )

Don't worry about it. Whenever Voeglin debates these issues, I have to research also. One of the best sites out there is:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

The site's devoted to debunking David Barton, but it's a great resource for church/state arguments.
Ringo

 

[Flynmonkie]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]Thanks (blush). But you're perfectly worthy, Flyn You are awesome at debunking illogic on these boards.

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Don't worry about it. Whenever Voeglin debates these issues, I have to research also. One of the best sites out there is:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

The site's devoted to debunking David Barton, but it's a great resource for church/state arguments.
Ringo

Yes, I actually had just seen that link. I planned to investigate it further. I listed in in my answer to your post (aren't ya proud of me?) Of course, that is about it, but I am learning!!

 

[Ringo84]

Well, I'm glad to help wherever you're being overrun

Sorry for being gone so long.
Ringo

 

[Voegelin]

How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

Guess its time to mention George Soros. He has funded Catholics for a Free Choice. Check them out. CFFC opposes the Majesterium of the Catholic Church on point after point...from abortion to gay marriage. Right there you have the largest donor to the Democratic Party in history opposing the principles of the church which represents about half of Christendom.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Well, I'm glad to help wherever you're being overrun

Sorry for being gone so long.
Ringo

No problem. But you have not seen the worst of it yet. After two days, we are all really tired. Don't wear yourself out here! Not just this thread... notice the announcements yet? So far I have been accused of attacking Christians, a trouble maker, non-Christian… especially when they twist specific bible verses to promote hate and discourse amongst Christians. The extremists have been squeezed with the name change and they are spewing venom... They are threatening class action suits because they want their money back. We are all demon possessed...sleeping with Satan.. Anything goes at this point. watch out.

 

[Ringo84]

No problem. But you have not seen the worst of it yet. After two days, we are all really tired. Don't wear yourself out here! Not just this thread... notice the announcements yet? So far I have been accused of attacking Christians, a trouble maker, non-Christian… especially when they twist specific bible verses to promote hate and discourse amongst Christians. The extremists have been squeezed with the name change and they are spewing venom... They are threatening class action suits because they want their money back. We are all demon possessed...sleeping with Satan.. Anything goes at this point. watch out.

No kidding? I had no idea that things had precipitated to that point here. It's like an online civil war.

Those charges against you are bogus because of all the people I've met, you are one of the least likely to cause trouble. And I don't believe for a second that you're not a Christian. I'm sorry that's been going on and if need arises, I will defend your good name here.

I will be careful. I'll also try to help whenever I can. Thanks for letting me know. I had figured that despite the name change, the forums hadn't changed much.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

Guess its time to mention George Soros. He has funded Catholics for a Free Choice. Check them out. CFFC opposes the Majesterium of the Catholic Church on point after point...from abortion to gay marriage. Right there you have the largest donor to the Democratic Party in history opposing the principles of the church which represents about half of Christendom.

I appreciate the input, Voeglin, but I think your point is weak. Who, besides the Catholic church, said that Catholics are the absolute final arbiters of all Christian theology? It is quite possible to disagree with the Catholic church on even the big issues and call oneself a Christian. Catholics don't represent all of Christendom.

Furthermore, Soros is one person. He may be a big Democratic supporter but he doesn't represent the party as a whole. Therefore, I don't think that just because Soros supports a certain group, and because that group opposes Catholic points of doctrine that it means the Democratic party is "opposing Christian principles" at all.
Ringo

 

[Flynmonkie]

No kidding? I had no idea that things had precipitated to that point here. It's like an online civil war.

Those charges against you are bogus because of all the people I've met, you are one of the least likely to cause trouble. And I don't believe for a second that you're not a Christian. I'm sorry that's been going on and if need arises, I will defend your good name here.

I will be careful. I'll also try to help whenever I can. Thanks for letting me know. I had figured that despite the name change, the forums hadn't changed much.
Ringo

I have had two people I don't even know tell me that I attack Christians. They have witnessed it (I did say a couple of things but I was very clear why, that is in the site supporter forum) One in the Baptist thread that has totally lost respect for me.... but it reminds me of the Salem witch hunts.. "Yes, I saw her do it -- IT IS SHE WHO BROUGHT THE DEVIL HERE!"

No worries, I am used to being pretty much hated around here. It happens when you don't "think" like the rest of the world and are not as gifted in communicating that, as you are!

 

[Ringo84]

I have had two people I don't even know tell me that I attack Christians. They have witnessed it (I did say a couple of things but I was very clear why, that is in the site supporter forum) One in the Baptist thread that has totally lost respect for me.... but it reminds me of the Salem witch hunts.. "Yes, I saw her do it -- IT IS SHE WHO BROUGHT THE DEVIL HERE!"

No worries, I am used to being pretty much hated around here. It happens when you don't "think" like the rest of the world and are not as gifted in communicating that, as you are!

I am used to being pretty much hated around here.

I am truly sorry to hear that, because you are one of my favorite people here. I don't hate you at all, and I never will.

are not as gifted in communicating that, as you are!

Thank you (blush)
Ringo

 

[clirus]

mpok1519 quote

Christians should be light and oppose evil things (such as cars, wine, cigars, soft-drinks and twinkies- you may call these things evil, but I'd think you're a grade-A psychopath if you honestly think these things are evil) but WHERES the middle ground?! Is there no such thing as moderatism nowadays? Or is it always radicalism?


Ringo84 quote

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the government should be able to favor one religion over another. It isn't. The thing about freedom is that it must apply equally to everyone or it is meaningless. The government protects religious liberty by stepping aside and not taking sides on religious matters (religiously neutral) so that private citizens are given the freedom of conscience.

The government as an entity does not have the freedom of religion; it must remain religiously neutral. Private citizens - including those who work in government - do have freedom of religion because the government is religiously neutral.
Ringo

Response

The flaw in your argument is that you assume there is a neutral position or moderatism or compromise.

Things are either good or evil.

The question is what to do about good and evil.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

Evil should never be accepted, but it can be tolerated. I have never advocated force, or banning (however the government has decided to ban cigarettes). What I stated is the government should discourage evil (non religious) by pointing out the disease, death and destruction of evil, and the church should encourage good.

The Bible teaches Christians to love the sinner and not the sin.

 

[clirus]

ONEGod quote

Our forefathers made it abundantly clear we are and were birthed as a Judeo-Christian nation, and how clearly they told us so.

Response

Thank you.

David Barton has done an excellent job of presenting information on the relationship of the church and state.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

I believe God did guide the framers of the Constriction, whether they were Christians, Deists, or Atheists. God can use any type of person to bring about His will. That does not mean Deists and Atheists will be in heaven, just that God can use anyone.

David Barton also has many books about the ill effects of America turning away from God and getting into socialism for the bast 60 years.